Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 20
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

www.911eyewitness.com...




Yes Lyte, I had made mention of it the other night on a thread. Hadn't posted it yet. I was going to let all the hoopla die down before I made another controversial post.


Now you guys can see it. The flashes from demo charges from within the North Tower.




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Wow, how long did it take to edit those in then? Only kidding. It looks like it's light catching on debris, like parts of the facade or glass maybe. The flashing is not in any sort of pattern consistant with the collapse anyway.

And as I said before, if debris was ejected with enough force horizontally it could still land some distance away. It's one thing to discuss how much force would be required, but it certainly does not 'require a parabolic arc'. If you fire a gun horizontally from the top of the WTC it would go for miles.
As I showed before with the aid of stills, the arc effect is caused by the tower's collapse pulling down on the air above, hence the curvature towards the tower. If you bother watching the video it's pretty obvious, and if you overlay images from the beginning of the collapse with the middle and end you can see it even more clearly.
The crucial mistake you seem to be making is in forgetting that the platform from which the debris was ejected is moving down the whole time, also having to bear in mind that the vacuum caused by the collapsing tower will cause air to be sucked downwards, pulling down the rear of the debris trail and causing the arc effect.
Rick's assumptions seem to be based on a stationary platform from which the debris was ejected for some reason..


[edit on 20-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I’ll have to wait till tonight to watch that.

I may have seen it before. In the one I saw, the so-called flashes were all exactly 1 pixel in size.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
the flashes are most prominent in the core in the beginning of the collapse.

there are literally hundreds of them.

some are bigger and more pronounced then others.

follow my instructions when watching the video.


watch ONLY the first 9 seconds of the clip and watch it over and over while concentrating on the core.

between seconds 4 and 5 particularly you can see a ton of them right in the middle of the core.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

And as I said before, if debris was ejected with enough force horizontally it could still land some distance away. It's one thing to discuss how much force would be required, but it certainly does not 'require a parabolic arc'. If you fire a gun horizontally from the top of the WTC it would go for miles.
As I showed before with the aid of stills, the arc effect is caused by the tower's collapse pulling down on the air above, hence the curvature towards the tower. If you bother watching the video it's pretty obvious, and if you overlay images from the beginning of the collapse with the middle and end you can see it even more clearly.
The crucial mistake you seem to be making is in forgetting that the platform from which the debris was ejected is moving down the whole time, also having to bear in mind that the vacuum caused by the collapsing tower will cause air to be sucked downwards, pulling down the rear of the debris trail and causing the arc effect.
Rick's assumptions seem to be based on a stationary platform from which the debris was ejected for some reason..


[edit on 20-1-2006 by AgentSmith]


slice it and dice it all you want.

it is CLEAR that 100's of tons of steel projectiles were sent flying. whether or not the degree of the arc changes as the building moves OR if it's a "horizontal" projectile is irrelevent.

they most certainly were projectiles and no honest/unbiased person could deny that.

since of course there were many other pieces that we can observe falling straight down....it is a logical conclusion that additional energy was required to force the massive tonnage of projectiles that we can observe having landed 100's of feet away to be sent flying that far. especially since we can
observe them actually flying in the video.



[edit on 20-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
follow my instructions when watching the video.


What, you mean like take part in some sort of mass conditioning event to make people see what you want?



watch ONLY the first 9 seconds of the clip and watch it over and over while concentrating on the core.

between seconds 4 and 5 particularly you can see a ton of them right in the middle of the core.


Ahh... That'll be a yes then


Ever wonder why you have to look so hard to see what you want? Watch any real demolition video and you#ll see it straight away, but in your own words you have to "follow my instructions when watching the video" by ''watch(ing) ONLY the first 9 seconds of the clip and watch it over and over while concentrating on the core.

between seconds 4 and 5 particularly you can see a ton of them right in the middle of the core. ''

Emm... Suggesting to people what they should be seeing? Seems rather odd for something so 'obvious'.

It looks like it was added in to me, odd that no-one has seen these flashes before and reported them, not even in a hoax in the last nearly 5 years. Yet somehow he picked them up on his camcorder miles away.


Even if they are real, they can easily be reflections on light coloured and reflective material being ejected from the destruction zone. If the footage is indeed unedited this would account for people nearer to the scene not seeing it as the oppurtunity for the light to reflect would be diminished or non-existant. The angles required at the respective times would definately be different.


they most certainly were projectiles and no honest/unbiased person could deny that.

since of course there were many other pieces that we can observe falling straight down....it is a logical conclusion that additional energy was required to force the massive tonnage of projectiles that we can observe having landed 100's of feet away to be sent flying that far. especially since we can
observe them actually flying in the video.


I think you are severly underestimating the forces at work here, here's a simple example - if you take a springy piece of metal and squash it between your fingertips so it bends, if it slips and gives way the tension may allow it to spring out a considerable distance, even horizontally. Imagine this magnified into pieces of metal not millimetres or centimetres long but severel metres long.. Get the picture? They didn't teach you that in Primary School for fun you know...

[edit on 20-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
AgentSmith, it seems like your primary weapon on here is sarcasm. A hell of a lot of it, and not much else.

All you had to say in your last post, was that you think those flashes of light are reflections, and that the ejected steel must be the equivalent of soapy fingers on the buildings.

For the flashes, look at the part of the building from which they are coming from.

Now look at where the sun is positioned.

You should notice that one side of the video is light (that would be where the sun's light is coming from
), and one side is dark (oh noes, no sun over there ;( ).

Now for a simple experiment, find videos or photographs of the collapse from roughly the same angle as the sun's light hitting the building, and see if you can see through to the other side.

If you can't, then the idea that light from the sun is being reflected off of falling metals (I'm assuming the aluminum perimeter facades) might be a little faulty.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
agentsmith's "weapon" is not only sarcasm but pure idiocy!

conditioning??

spare me.

i was just pointing out where in the video most of the visible flashes took place.

and surprise surprise......it's in the CORE!

i love how official story swallowers love to turn the tables as if people in the truth movement are doing the conditioning!

absurd.

it says a lot that you have to claim the flashes were added because you obviously know that they lend credence to controlled demolition theories.

there is compelling visual evidence, audio evidence, and good old fashion physics to back it up so the official story iS melting away faster and faster.


and what is it with ridiculous analogies like the "thin" piece of metal?

how in gods name is that relevant in the least?

if your ridiculous springy metal theory explains why 100's of tons of steel were sent flying 100's of feet then why wouldn't that hold true for all the metal?

obviously energy from explosives would be mostly absorbed in the disintegration of the core but additional energy would send SOME pieces flying while others would drop straight down as we observed.

sorry man but your springy metal theory just doesn't bounce!





BOING!


Mod Edit: I put the reason for the warn in bold at the top. Insulting another member is not becoming, especially when it's only to make you feel better at someone's expense. I certainly didn't want you thinking it was for something else.


[edit on 20-1-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
How exactly do those flashes support explosives?


It appears that the building is almost down at that point. Considering the thousands of materials that reflect light, that seems to be the most likely explanation.


Or are you trying to say that the building was brought down with firecrackers?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
cutting charges from 100's or even thousands of high tech explosives in the core.

perhapse some sort of thermite type reaction but more advanced and efficient.

have you read professor jones' paper yet?

remember this?

" An intriguing photograph (top pic) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate. We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1. The photograph on the left shows, for comparison, the thermite reaction with a grayish-white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending upwards from the white-hot molten iron "blob" from the reaction (www.cchem.berkeley.edu... )."








posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind



It appears that the building is almost down at that point.


no.

the charges are only in the BEGINNING of the clip.

that is why i "conditioned" you to watch specifically the first 9 seconds and to look specifically in the core where most of the charges are visible.

the charges were disintegrating the core support collumns so as to allow the building to fall.


it's how controlled demo companies always do it and what could never happen naturally due to "load shift" or "pancaking" or collective progressive failure or whatever other *_____* term de jour that has been made up to explain it.

Mod Edit: Removed profanity. Please avoid the potty language as per the terms of this site. Thanks.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Been a while since I looked at a WTC collapse thread on ATS. This one is very interesting


Personally, I'm still on the fence. The "explosions" that can be heard are incredible. Maybe they're wind buffeting that has been cleverly edited....maybe not. If they're for real then it's pretty big evidence.

The flashes on that short clip are nothing special - just reflecting debris from what I can see....most likely glass. Sorry


I just love the free-falling WTC7 tho....it's still the killer for me. How a building of that sort could collapse in such a manner (after sustaining the damage it did) is almost laughable.

At the moment I'm coming down on the side of the "bombs in the basement" camp. Purely on my gut instinct looking at the way those buildings came down. It just wasn't right.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How exactly do those flashes support explosives?


It appears that the building is almost down at that point. Considering the thousands of materials that reflect light, that seems to be the most likely explanation.


Reflected light here is not a likely explanation.

In case you missed the suggestion in my last post, watch the video and note where the sun is again. It's pretty obvious, given you have any common sense, that the sun is coming in roughly from the left side of the perspective.

The flashes are present on the side opposite the approach of the sunlight.

Now, when something is in shade (because that's what that's called when sunlight is blocked: shade), you can still see because of light bouncing off of other objects in lesser amounts. But try to reflect sunlight in conditions like this. You'll find it just won't happen.

Again, I challenge anyone to find images or video taken from roughly the same angle of collapse from which sunlight was approaching and show that you can see sunlight through the collapse and to the other side. This would indicate that light is penetrating across to the other side. Or even show video/photos from the side roughly opposite of the approach of sunlight, and show where sunlight is penetrating through where it can reflect.

Put simply, sunlight can't be reflected in shade; it's being blocked. And guess where those flashes are seen? On the shaded side of the collapse. These are facts, btw.

Now I have full faith that you guys will find some way around this that will allow you to justify the magical reflection of blocked-out sunlight (maybe even Howard's apparent suggestion of random pixel errors), but just keep in mind that if you can't refute the fact of sunlight being blocked in shaded areas, then you're not going to be making any sense. Nothing new there, though, and that's why I have full faith that you guys can come up with some total bs to once again prevent you from having to consider the obvious.


Or are you trying to say that the building was brought down with firecrackers?


Maybe you aren't aware, but a lot of explosives put off an energy byproduct of sorts in the form of something called light (and many also put off heat as well! who'd have thought?). That doesn't only include firecrackers, you know.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you aren't aware, but a lot of explosives put off an energy byproduct of sorts in the form of something called light (and many also put off heat as well! who'd have thought?). That doesn't only include firecrackers, you know.


I'm willing to bet that since people were there and spent many hours a day, there were also bottles of hairspray, cleaning fluid, airfreshener, batteries, computer monitors, fire extinguishers, computer dust spray, and over various other sundries that would also pop due to the heat from the fires.

That's a great find!



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I'm willing to bet that since people were there and spent many hours a day, there were also bottles of hairspray, cleaning fluid, airfreshener, batteries, computer monitors, fire extinguishers, computer dust spray, and over various other sundries that would also pop due to the heat from the fires.

That's a great find!


So here's another explanation offered.

So to keep track, that's faulty pixels, sunlight reflection, and now various exploding bottles and etc.

The big problems with this one is that (a) such objects being crushed by tons of steel will not burst into a bright flash, and (b) it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for any such objects to be ignited under circumstances which involve both the objects in question and floors containing fire falling at incredible speed and disintegrating, without the said objects igniting at some point prior to collapse.

I can guarantee that heavy materials dropped on hairspray bottles, batteries, computer monitors, etc. would not result in explosions, let alone explosions emitting intensely bright light. Batteries and computer monitors I find the most absurd. Do you know what exactly are in those items that would explode and emit bright light? And if you watch much Myth Busters, you'd know exactly what happens to a fire extinguisher when it explodes. A lot of pressure escaping, but no light flashes. And should any of those things have exploded, it would've required heat, and the light produced would've likely been reddish orange (chemical combustions in some of the above-mentioned products) or somewhere along those lines, rather than white.

The objects would have to be exposed to a lot of heat for any sort of explosion at all, and then one would think that such explosions would occur at some point before the collapse initiated (since that's when the fires were supposed to have done the damage, after all), and not during collapse.

And then the issue of how a fire could have possibly exploded any of those items to produce a flash as the floors and objects were falling and disintegrating. Rather odd circumstances for fires to be heating objects.


You guys realize you're just clutching at a bunch of straws, right? That there is actually a plausible answer here that you're refusing to consider?

[edit on 21-1-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Short sample slowed down


Watch these flashes again in super slow motion.
You'll notice they appear in the same position multiple times.
They are not falling, they are going off in bursts and also running down the building timed with the collapse. Thermite cutting the core, magical floating debris or deoderant cans and computer screens?

YOU DECIDE.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
References to 'The video' are of the Original 'EyeWitness' program.

You can see the same flashes when the first tower collapses, you have to watch the video to really appreciate them but they look the same, apart from the fact that due to the second tower blocking the view of the first, you only see the reflections of the material falling to the sides, not in front to give the illusion of it coming from the building.
It occurs at 20 minutes into the video, I suggest watching it. Here are a few stills, though it does not do it justice..



During the whole video, you can also see 'detonation flashes' in the water, and around various building if you look.

At 38:09 one of the flashes clearly moves downwards, and appears to be in the area that just collapsed anyway.

At 38:02 - 38:03 you can see several 'detonation flashes' in the debris ejected from the building, as this very clear one in the still below..
Funnily enough in the edited version that was posted earlier of the detonation flashes, this section have been edited out.




You can also see flashes in areas where the building is no longer standing...

What some people are failing to appreciate is that the refelections are caused by material ejected outwards, due to the fact the camera is looking straight on at the tower it gives the illusion that the flashes are occuring in or on the perimeter of the building when they are infact closer to the camera and out of the building's shadow. The image above illustrates this point well as the apparant flash which is obviously no where near the building is in apparant shadow.
If you look at the flashes you will notice that they occur in areas where there is sunlight, as in most cases you can see either before or after the flash the smoke in the area being lit up by the sun.

It is also interesting to notice that due to the point the new clip starts, not only does it neatly miss out the obvious flashes outside of the area occupied by the building, but you also feel the building is wider than it is This is probably done due to the large number of flashes that occur outside of the area occupied by the building which becomes obvious when you overlay an earlier image and see where the building was actually located.

Logic should dictate alone that as we can observe the same phenomenon in the first collapse where it is blatantly obivous it is reflections on debris, that the same thing would occur during the second collapse as well.

We could do a frame by frame analysis, but it would just be a waste of time, it's extraordinarily clear what is really being seen here. The crafty editing of the clip showing these 'detonation flashes' says it all really.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Howdy folks...

Something is fishy with that video...

It's cut from the second one WCIP posted here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The flashes don't occur in that one...

Sort of makes you go hmmm...



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You guys realize you're just clutching at a bunch of straws, right? That there is actually a plausible answer here that you're refusing to consider?




Clutching at straws?

I think that the video is questionable considering that other versions don't have the flashes.


Clutching at straws would be saying that it's impossible for light to reflect off objects buddy.


If those flashes are real the most plausible answer would be peices of glass . The most implausible answer would be tiny peices of thermite placed throughout the building with no one noticeing.


Lyte Trizzle that first picture you posted has had some serious editing done to it. The actual unedited pic shows none of the "blobs" of thermite.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Lyte Trizzle that first picture you posted has had some serious editing done to it. The actual unedited pic shows none of the "blobs" of thermite.


Look closely at 51 seconds. There's a big one there.

The picture with the flashes is much closer or better quality or maybe more focused or something. I'm having internet trouble, and can't check it out more right now, but I'm not convinced that the flashes are not on the wcip video.





top topics
 
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join